next »

[J-Snake]

That alone can help you identify bugs with the engine.

That is gross. A serious engine shouldn't have any bugs.

-split from Unity discussion, st33d

[rivon]

Any piece of software has bugs. That's a fact.

[IndieEmma]

Any piece of software has bugs. That's a fact.

Except for John Carmack's software.

[J-Snake]

Any piece of software has bugs. That's a fact.

Not necessarily. Especially the lower-level stuff shall be absolutely bug-free and solid. At least it is a good principle to follow.

[rivon]

Yes, it should. But that doesn't mean it is... There are bugs even in CPUs.

[J-Snake]

Do you mean that cpus dont compute the stuff they are told to at times? That is unfortunate but I think it is so rare that whenever you see a game-bug you can feel confident to blame the code for it and very unlikely the cpu.

I have never encountered the mal-functioning of the hardware itself on the hardware I worked so far, every bug turned out to be code-related.

[rivon]

I don't care. I'm just saying that however hard you try, there will always be bugs. Hough.

[Fallsburg]

Do you mean that cpus dont compute the stuff they are told to at times? That is unfortunate but I think it is so rare that whenever you see a game-bug you can feel confident to blame the code for it and very unlikely the cpu.

I have never encountered the mal-functioning of the hardware itself on the hardware I worked so far, every bug turned out to be code-related.

The most publicized CPU bug is probably the original Pentium's problem with division. 

[moi]

as soon as the code becomes complex, bugs are prone to appear just because the coder cannot possibly think of all the interactions between different parts of the program, or sometimes the coder just doesn't really know himself what he expects from the program.
Trap them is probably a very simple program if it doesn't have bugs

[ferreiradaselva]

as soon as the code becomes complex, bugs are prone to appear just because the coder cannot possibly think of all the interactions between different parts of the program, or sometimes the coder just doesn't really know himself what he expects from the program.
Trap them is probably a very simple program if it doesn't have bugs

I have a different thought. I think it's more conducive to having bugs in a large program made by many people than a large program made by a single person, it is difficult have no misinterpretation when more than one person works on the same code.

[J-Snake]

TrapThem is quite complex, at least if you intend to achieve a clone with the same perfect gaming-quality. The code-design could actually be a lot better structured, I break design-rules by taking shortcuts here and there, but it's scope is not too big and I know what i am doing.

And yeah, working alone or in teams makes the ultimate difference when it comes to bugs.
If the implementation is actually well structured and complete there should be no reason for bugs.

My head explodes when I listen how AAA-studios are dealing with 20000+ bugs when their games come out. I think I wouldn't be able to develop like this by principle. I would never realise my game if I encounter one single-bug or if something is mal-functioning. I will fix it before anyone notices it.

[rivon]

I would never realise my game if I encounter one single-bug or if something is mal-functioning. I will fix it before anyone notices it.

Lol, you wish... Happy bug-fixing after the release

[louisdeb]

It has good compatibility, looks nice, is pretty new, and once some demand is created for people using it, the amount of people who know it increase, creating lots of Unity-able devs, creating more reason for studios to use it.

On an individual level there's a really helpful, large Unity forum population making it easy to learn and work with.

[J-Snake]

I would never realise my game if I encounter one single-bug or if something is mal-functioning. I will fix it before anyone notices it.

Lol, you wish... Happy bug-fixing after the release

It is in a very late dev-stage and I and the players have never encountered one, so it is very unlikely to happen. Bug-free games is an important quality-mark I want to be known for in the future.

[louisdeb]

I would never realise my game if I encounter one single-bug or if something is mal-functioning. I will fix it before anyone notices it.

Lol, you wish... Happy bug-fixing after the release

It is in a very late dev-stage and I and the players never have encountered one, so it is very unlikely to happen.

That sounds a bit too over confident. Bugs are part of the development process...

[J-Snake]

That is ok as long as they are not a part of the finished game.

[BorisTheBrave]

Still seems a stupid attitude to have - bugs can get through. Two that are particularly hard to detect ahead of time are issues specific to one architecture, and level design failures - how can you really be certain you've checked every possible system, and every possible quirk of a players mind? If your game cannot suffer from these, fine, but accept that that is not a luxury everyone has.

[rivon]

There were most probably just very few players who played your game so the bugs just didn't appear.

[J-Snake]

Still seems a stupid attitude to have - bugs can get through. Two that are particularly hard to detect ahead of time are issues specific to one architecture, and level design failures - how can you really be certain you've checked every possible system, and every possible quirk of a players mind? If your game cannot suffer from these, fine, but accept that that is not a luxury everyone has.

During a healthy development process bugs come and go but they don't accumulate. If bugs accumulate then I think there is something wrong/dirty with working-moral and code-design.

Yes, if you work on rush like in aaa-studios you don't have that luxury and the outcome depends on far too many people to assure perfect quality. I cannot be 100% sure absolutely nothing slipped through such as typing errors. But if you plan your game through, down to the lowest logical level, you know about all the consequences which you have to take care of. In the end you go through all the code twice to ensure every piece works properly on its own and then you ensure that all the pieces are properly linked together. If you follow that principle things are unlikely to go inperfect. And even when one or two bugs slip through you will fix it when noticed and it will be perfect from then on. But if the game is still patched after years with patches to patch the patch then there is just something wrong with code-design, or the approach of the game-idea doesn't fit the computer-representation.

[st33d]

Have you released a game yet?